| 1 |
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 30/07/12 07:28, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.com> |
| 5 |
>> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> On 30/07/12 06:08, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.com> |
| 11 |
>>>> wrote: |
| 12 |
>>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>>> On 30/07/12 05:23, Philip Webb wrote: |
| 15 |
>>>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>>>> |
| 17 |
>>>>>> i5-2550K & FX-4100 both use 95 W |
| 18 |
>>>>>> (some of the more costly AMDs use 125 W ). |
| 19 |
>>>>> |
| 20 |
>>>>> |
| 21 |
>>>>> |
| 22 |
>>>>> |
| 23 |
>>>>> Note that power savings are not important if you're not using a laptop. |
| 24 |
>>>>> CPU |
| 25 |
>>>>> power savings on a desktop don't translate to any relevant amount of |
| 26 |
>>>>> money |
| 27 |
>>>>> on your electricity bills. This is because neither of those CPUs |
| 28 |
>>>>> really |
| 29 |
>>>>> use |
| 30 |
>>>>> 95W. That's just the thermal upper limit. |
| 31 |
>>>> |
| 32 |
>>>> |
| 33 |
>>>> |
| 34 |
>>>> To be fair, power savings are relevant if you're concerned about your |
| 35 |
>>>> electric bill, or if you're concerned about heat management in your |
| 36 |
>>>> system. |
| 37 |
>>>> |
| 38 |
>>>> Consider my dual E5345...leaving that on 24x7 appears to cost me about |
| 39 |
>>>> 90USD/mo. |
| 40 |
>>> |
| 41 |
>>> |
| 42 |
>>> |
| 43 |
>>> CPU power savings will transform that into a 89.9USD/mo ;-) That's what |
| 44 |
>>> I |
| 45 |
>>> mean. It's not worth much. It helps quite a bit with laptop battery |
| 46 |
>>> life. |
| 47 |
>>> But for desktops, it doesn't do anything too useful. |
| 48 |
>> |
| 49 |
>> |
| 50 |
>> If you really want the hard numbers, check out some place like Tom's |
| 51 |
>> Hardware or Phoronix. I forget which does the power consumption |
| 52 |
>> measurements. At some of the hardware review blogs, you can get |
| 53 |
>> numbers on idle vs full-load power consumption, as measured at the |
| 54 |
>> wall. The difference truly is striking. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> When you have full load, the CPU won't clock down. So nothing saved there. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
When you're considering full load, the TDP becomes a useful estimation |
| 60 |
of relative power consumption between different processors. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
> If you don't have full load, the clock-down doesn't save much compared to |
| 63 |
> max clocks while idle. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
This is where you're wrong. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-23.html |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-power-consumption-efficiency,3060-11.html |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
-- |
| 72 |
:wq |
Archives